Pages

Friday, 28 January 2011

Sometimes I think I’m innured to homophobia, I expect it, I’m used to it and when I read of it – well I have read of and seen it at its worst, I can no longer be shocked… and then…

Then we have the case of David Kato. He was a gay Ugandan man and an incredibly brave and dedicated advocate and activist for gay rights in a nation that won’t even grant GBLT people the right to live freely.
And he has been murdered. Beaten to death

Tuesday, 25 January 2011

February in the UK is LGBT history month. Now, as I’ve said before I have a lot of problems with various history months (and do let’s insert the snark about “shortest month” here), but one thing I don’t regret is the portrayal of LGBT people in education. Kids need to see we have worth, that we exist that we’re not aberrations or sins or diseased. And that’s doubly so for LGBT kids.

So, one of the best things that is happening during this month are lessons that have an LGBT slant. Lessons with LGBT themes, lessons so our kids can see people like themselves once in a very great while.
And of course the haters got to hate. The haters and the bigots cannot possibly allow any attempt to tell our children they have value or worth, cannot allow any attempt to try and reduce their pain or the appalling suicide rate that takes so many of our youth.

She is afraid that us gays have a “ruthless agenda” to destroy “normal sexuality” because you see we’re not normal. We’re freaks and diseased and other and corrupting the precious, proper, real straight people and their pure real sexuality. And of course telling them that gay people exist is an “abuse.”

See, telling a gay kid that they’re ok being gay and there’s nothing wrong with them? That’s an abuse. That’s child abuse apparently. Far better to wait until eh commit suicide – the Daily Mail and Melanie Phillips would much prefer that

Of course she thinks including non-sexual references to gay people in education is absurd. Absurd? Our existence is absurd?

No, do you know what is absurd? Her implication that being gay will become mandatory. That is beyond absurd. Seriously? Mandatory homosexuality? Everyone will have to become gay?

Really I can’t comment on the article, I cna’t. Reading it is nauseating, it is that bad – easily as bad as the evil flowing from Jan Moir

The Daily Mail is pushing new limits of hatred with this one.

Words cannot express how every little attempt to stop the suffering of GBLT people, especially our young, is met by such vehement opposition. It’s sadistic, it’s cruel and it’s evil

We know that the PCC won’t do anything after the Jan Moir debacle, we know the PCC supports and encourages homophobia. However, as in the previous trainwreck from this paper of hate, we can talk to the
advertisers

Marks & Spencers
Vodaphone
Axa
Samsung

Are all advertising on this page. This is what their products are associating with – and they are places where my money will not go while they continue to support this evil

Deity: Damn it, GABRIEL! GABRIEL!
Gabe: Yes boss?
Deity: Look, look at the American military!
Gabe: Oh no, more torture scandals? Dead civilians? The general evil of war?
Deity: Screw that, you know I don’t care about that stuff! They’re letting homos me soldiers! The gays Gabriel! The terrible gays!!!!
Gabe: I see… have you been drinking again?
Deity: I warned them! I WARNED THEM! I will send a message they cannot doubt!
Gabe: Gotcha, I’ll get Metatron, talking pillars of flame it is
Deity: Don’t be silly. I’m killing some birds
Gabe: Birds? But…
Deity: BIRDS! Damn their flapping evil! They’re in league with the gaaaays!
Gabe: ooookay. We need to water your drinks a bit more.

Tuesday, 18 January 2011

The hate groups will take very little to set them off, and recently we’ve had another bigot rumble from a group f religious folks who would like to make it clear that Martin Luther King would not have supported gay rights.
And in general, this is something that just causes me to shrug, maybe roll my eyes. I don’t particularly care whether Martin Luther King was a homophobe or not (and if you’re anti-gay rights then, yes, you’re a homophobe)

So on the whole, I don’t care whether Martin Luther King supported gay rights or not. My rights don’t become more or less important on the basis of whether one man supported them or not. I think the whole idea of asking whether ANYONE would have supported gay rights is irrelevant and offensive – because it implies our rights need approval – and from a straight man no less.

More over, nor would I hail how pro-gay MLK would have been because, well, he didn’t seem to be. Whatever the personal opinions of this straight man were, they were not sufficient to warrant particular attention from him. I wouldn’t hold him up as a champion or supporter of gay rights not just because it’s appropriative, but because I don’t think he is due that accolade.

A lot of my opinion comes from my not having much truck with heroes of any stripe. I think it’s a bad habit of humanity to put people on pedestals. We raise someone up and suddenly we have to agree with everything they’ve ever said and done, we fight rabidly at any suggestion that they may have made mistakes, done some bad things, *gasp* been human. I’ve seen people defend things they find personally highly objectionable because Hero has said/done them. I think you can praise and honour and respect someone and their words and actions and message, but hero-worshipping someone often ends up in problematic areas.

I think sometimes we honour a person over the message they brought (how much of MLK’s message is even remembered? His words out outraged injustice His peace activism? How much of these messages are lost?) Hence why so many of the right wingers love top completely rip the famous “I have a dream” speech. They’re appealing to the authority of a hero and violating his message of anti-racism. And it’s certainly not in any way limited to one man – from Ghandi to Mothert Theresa to founding fathers to Churchill to Nelson Mandela to a squillion other people have been placed on pedestals and hailed.

That doesn’t mean his message wasn’t important. Ye gods it was. It doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be honoured for being the creator and speaker of that message, because there aren’t enough hails in the world. It also doesn’t mean that that message is not applicable to GBLT people, especially GBLT people of colour – but is the message dependent on the man’s personal approval for it to be applicable? Would the message not have as much power and meaning – including for GBLT people – if he was actually a homophobe or indifferent to gay rights or whatever?

I don’t think so – because his message was inspired and glorious and insightful and powerful and cannot be diminished by any number of people arguing “no, it totally doesn’t apply to the homos” You can’t kill inspiration and passion and rightness so easily

Never mind that broadcasters regularly alter words to cover everything from profanity to reference to drugs. Seriously, you must have heard it? Gods, there’s a song out there that if played before the watershed edits out “smoking grass in the back” because cannabis use is too risque! And no-one lost their ever loving shit over that one – but an anti-gay slur, quite possibly the vilest anti-gay word in existence and people are furious that their artistic vision is disrupted

Can I tell you how wonderful the internet is that you can’t throw a rock right now without righteous bloggers on the left and the right merrily using the word over and over. Because clicking on blogs and other websites and being ambushed by hate speech (and some straight person telling me how little that hate speech matters) is ALMOST as much fun as turning on the radio and being ambushed by hate speech. FUN TIMES!

And enough of the people saying “it doesn’t mean that in that context” about this and the Pogues (a song I love – but I love the edited version a million times more because it didn’t give lots of arseholes license to chant slurs and protest to any authority figure that it was in a song) because that’s such epicly stinking bullshit that it’s been upgraded to heaping piles of elephant shit. I know that word can mean different things in different context- in Britain variations of it are used to mean everything from meatball to cigarette. I know because people think it’s SOOOO clever to use them around me and work them in as often as they can for giggles. I also know that they aren’t what is meant here, so cut out your pathetic defence.

Honestly – the epic battle here of thousands of people desperate, DERSPERATE to keep an anti-gay slur out there

Friday, 14 January 2011

Now, personally my thoughts are more “what, he can marry a woman for the sake of ‘art’ but he couldn’t marry another man for the sake of love?” and get rather seethingly pissed to be honest. Because it reminds me for all the prating from the straight world about how uber precious marriage is and it just can’t be sullied by our gay selves, the fact remains that a male/female couple is already quite capable of doing just about anything in, to or for marriage and absolutely no-one gives a damn

But the Daily Mail (ugh) interviewed someone who took a different view – see it was an act to denigrate marriage and of course it was done by a gay man – because after all that’s what we exist for. Because they couldn’t just comment on the marriage, they couldn’t just comment on the art, they couldn’t express whether they disagree or not – no it has to be the malicious gays!

This expert? Yes it’s Stephen bloody Green again bloody hellfire, who moved the rock and let this guy out? When did he become to go-to guy for all British media whenever discussing a gay person?

STOP talking to this man, stop interviewing him, stop treating him like an expert, stop deciding that this straight bigot is an expert on all gay issues ever. I am past sick of seeing a hate group continually interviewed to comment on everything we say, everything we do and everything we are.

Wednesday, 12 January 2011

I’ve said before that I want to say gay muppets. I want to see trans people on sesame street. I want to see Dora the explorer’s girlfriend. I want GBLTQ characters in every branch of media – from the incomprehensible bright coloured blobs that are inflicted on babies, through to those insomnia cures with elderly people badly painting churches with watercolours.

And then I come across, in a post where people are discussing the complete lack of GBLTQ representations in Disney programmes “what about contextual clues!” subtext! It’s all about the subtext! They’re implied to be gay, right? Kinda, sorta?

And you know what? It’s not a one shot thing. It’s not the first time I’ve seen it. It’s not the dozenth time. It’s plastered all over – the subtext, the context, the slash goggles somehow making a programme GBLTQ inclusive or friendly and I’m supposed to accept this and be happy with it?

Ok, I’m taking a deep breath so I don’t just respond with a strong of profanity.

No, it’s not enough. Your hot men who have what may be a lingering look or touched each other a little longer than you thought was strictly necessary or y’know are just “so gay together” do NOT count as GBLTQ representation. I don’t care if you’re sat there with your slash goggles and you’re going to run on home and dash off a ream of steamy steamy mansexing (but hey, if you’re going to, maybe you can avoid tropes like making one of the men shorter than he is on screen so he can ‘bottom properly’ and other such badness? Ugh, yes really) your slash fantasy is not a GBLTQ representation.

And deciding that subtext is ok for LBGTQ couples when the same programmes, the same channels, the same series and the same genre aimed at the same demographic is quite happy to have heterosexual couples being openly and blatantly straight (because EVERY LAST genre is happy with that, every last one in all forms of media everywhere) and not have to rely on context or subtext or implication or slash goggles or whatever euphemism we want to use for “it’s far too icky and obscene to state openly, so we have to make a subtle implication”.

Because that’s even more offensive to me. It’s offensive to me that I should regard these hidden hints (and some of them are dubious hints – they need thick slash goggles) as somehow representative of me because gods forbid I be allowed to openly exist and be portrayed! Be grateful for the subtext, because we’re too obscene to be blatant?

So no, I’m not going to hail a work for it’s GBLQT goodness because it may have characters that would fit so well into your hot mansexing slash. No I’m not going to hail it for having GLBTQ themes when it doesn’t have a single BGLTQ character. I am not going to praise it as pro-GBLTQ when the author retcon’s a character as GBLTQ after the fact*** In fact, I’m not going to consider any programme inclusive if I have to search for their “inclusivity” with a magnifying glass, slash goggles and a willingness to believe any men who stand within 3 feet of each other are totally getting it on. Especially not when in the same place a couple can hold hands, hugs, make googly eyes, kiss, make out, and/or have full on humptastic sex

Screw that, if you’re going to have GBLTQ representation – then have it. Don’t sorta hint while maintaining plausible deniability so you can keep the haters and the bigots and the Helen Lovejoys “won’t you please think of the children!” off your back. Don’t try to claim inclusivity cookies when you haven’t even condescended to include a sanitised token and I sure as hell am not going to see any show as inclusive or accepting when it has a 100% cis gendered, straight cast.

And that’s before we get to tokenism!

And that’s even before we get to sanitisation – where a programme/channel/network/genre will show straight folk humping away merrily but 2 people of the same sex having a chaste kiss gives them the vapours.

***A note on a past post: I’ve said in the past that I don’t disagree with Rowling’s decision to not reveal Dumbledore’s sexuality to Harry in the Potter novels. I still stand by that, in the context of the novels it’s perfectly reasonable that a headmaster wouldn’t discuss his sexuality or relationships of any kind. However, that means that they are a series of books, with a vast cast and lots of people pairing off and in relationships without a single GBLTQ character – without a single one. So no, I don’t complain about Dumbeldore’s closet – I complain about yet another overwhelmingly straight cast.

Don’t try to sell me your slash ships as freaking GBLTQ inclusion in the media. It amuses me not even slightly and reminds me (if I needed a reminder – because I so don’t) just how very much “writes about the mansex” does not equal “ally.”

Sunday, 9 January 2011

One of the things on this blog I have repeatedly said is that speech has consequences. For the most part I have said this in the context of marginalised people and hate speech – how marginalised people will have low self-image and even self hate when they’re in a society that continually demeans and hates and degrades them. How the haters will be discriminatory, bigoted and violent towards them while they’re in a society whose speech continually upholds such prejudice, accepts such prejudices and promotes such prejudice.

Hate speech has always had a cost – it is the foundation on which prejudice is built, it is the cheerleader squad for threatening action, it is the rallying cry for the violent, the extremist, the bigot. Speech can and does excuse the violence, it encourages it, it supports it and it makes it ok, acceptable, NORMAL.

.

.

And this applies just as much to political discourse as we have just tragically seen in the US.

Violent rhetoric in politics has always been an unfortunate staple – especially in the US. Poverty, Drugs, Terrorism? These aren’t wounds to heal or problems to solve or even criminals to catch – they’re wars to fight and battles to combat. There has always been an aggressive slant to the rhetoric (It’s said that “when all all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail” – then what can we say when all you have is a bullet?)

But this is further exacerbated and taken to new limits looking over the right wing there (and I don’t say they’re the only ones, but they extremely unrestrained and unrestrainedly extreme). How many rallies have wee seen with banners like “If Brown cannot stop health care, then Browning can” or “Time to Water the Tree of Liberty.”?

We know what these mean. They’re threats, they're calls to violence – and they were held up in rallies and accepted and normalised and understood. Violent threats were accepted as part of the discourse.

And worse – they were adopted by people who were supposed to be in authority. Not just demonstrators on the ground (and, I think, we can all admit that any demonstration is going to have a fringe) – but present, past and aspiring elected officials. That’s not fringe – that’s mainstream adopting the same violent rhetoric.

And now a gunman has attacked Rep Gifford, Jesse Kelly’s opponent and one of the targets of those crosshairs. She is now in hospital, severely injured after being shot. 6 other people died in the attack – including a 9 year old girl. Jarod Loughner and a possible unknown accomplice killed 6 people. And maybe there’s no connection, maybe there was no influence – but I doubt it

These are just some examples of the rhetoric of violence, I know we’ve all seen more, repeated over and over again and from people in or aspiring to be in some of the highest offices in government. The constant reference to guns and ammunition, the battle analogies, the violent references, the borderline – and not so borderline – threats coming from people we would hope would know better (though experience tells us not to expect them to know anything).

And all this violent rhetoric and violent posturing has welled up and killed several people, including a child. And we should not – cannot – be surprised by this. With every threat, every symbol, every metaphor, every gun site, the use of violence in politics was established, normalised and accepted. You can’t call for violence use the language of violence, normalise violence and then be surprised when violence happens.

Sadly the concept of “free speech” is one of the most abused and twisted you will ever come across. Once meant to be a simple concept that the government shouldn’t suppress dissenting views, shouldn’t try and hide and cover things up. It was a principle to prevent newspapers being shut down, to prevent the shit being stuffed under the rug, to prevent anyone who had an idea or a different system from being

Now it is used more and more and more for people to say any kind of vile shit and expect everyone to smile and eat it. Now it is used to pretend that speech has no consequence, has no power, that it is not part of the hatred or the violence or the pain that uses it as a foundation.

Free speech arose precisely because speech has power. It has great power, sometimes devastating power. When used foolishly, carelessly or maliciously it can hurt – it can wound and it can kill. And just because your weapons were words do not mean the blood is not on your hands.

Don’t worry, Kirsty Wark was quick to respond to such blatant homophobia by… laughing. And the BBC, in response to complaints believes that was an excellent way to deal with it and “move the discussion on”

I can’t help but wonder what would happen if the BBC had a guest that used a different slur to describe someone with such contempt? I doubt very much they would just laugh it off – let alone laugh it off and consider that DEALT with.

The BBC is developing a trying record. I think I’m becoming completely unconcerned about the threat to their license fee – and I certainly resent paying for this drivel